Journal of Emerging Trends in Economics and Management Sciences (JETEMS) 4(6):539-546

Scholarlink Research Institute Journals, 2013 (ISSN: 2141-7024)

jetems.scholarlinkresearch.org
Journal of Emerging Trends in Economics and Management Sciences (JETEMS) 4(6):539-546 (ISSN: 2141-7016)

Evidence of the Audit Expectation Gap in Nigeria

1

Johnson Kolawole Olowookere and 2Kenny Adedapo Soyemi

1

Department of Management and Accounting.

Ladoke Akintola University of Technology, Ogbomoso.Nigeria.
2
Department of Accounting, Banking & Finance,
Olabisi Onabanjo University, Ago Iwoye, Nigeria.
Corresponding Author: Johnson Kolawole Olowookere
________________________________________________________________________________________
Abstract
Criticism of auditors and litigation against them may result from auditors failure to meet societys expectations
of them. It may be that societys expectations are unreasonable, or that societys expectations are reasonable but
that auditors existing legal and professional requirements do not fulfill these expectations. This study examined
the existence of expectations gap between the auditors and users of financial statements in Nigeria. The study
adopts a survey research design.400 copies of questionnaire were administered on auditors, bankers and
investors in Ibadan and Osogbo, Nigeria. Data collected were analyzed using cross-sectional Friedman Test
analysis and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). The study reveals that an audit expectation gap exists in Nigeria.
We therefore recommended that the role and responsibility of auditors in the areas of fraud and illegal acts
should be broadening. It is also necessary to raise the awareness of the financial statements users about auditing
profession, its roles and objectives in the community.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Keywords: audit, audit expectation gap, fraud, role conflict theory, Nigeria.
INTRODUCTION
Etymologically, the term audit is derived from the
Latin word audire, which means to hear? Thus in
the beginning, the word was meant to hear and
auditor literally means a hearer. The hearing
function by the auditor was then aimed at declaring
that the accounts kept by the management and the
financial statements prepared by them were true and
correct. And his function was to give assurance
against fraud and intentional mismanagement.
Gradually, this hearing function of the auditor was
transformed into verifying function. Hence the
principal purpose of independent auditing now is to
form an opinion on the accuracy, reliability and
fairness of representations in the financial statements
of enterprises and to make this information available
to external users. In the early days of auditing, the
prime qualification for the position of auditor was
reputation. A man known for his integrity and
independence of mind would be sought for this
honored position, the matter of technical ability being
entirely secondary and consequently his function, in
those days, was never confused with that of
accountant (Woolf, 1979).

and Woo, 1998). The general opinion, amongst users

of financial information is that any investor with a
certain interest in a company should trust the audited
accounts, as the guarantee of solvency and viability
of the company. Therefore, once it is common
knowledge in an expected way, that when a company
is in serious financial difficulties, there is a tendency
to hold someone accountable for the situation, and
the suspect is the auditor. The publics expectation of
auditors guaranteeing the accuracy of financial
statements, or the financial stability of a company, is
in sharp contrasts to the professional position (Porter,
1988). An audit expectation gap exists when there
are differences in beliefs between auditors and the
public about the duties and responsibilities assumed
by auditors and the message(s) conveyed by audit
report (Monroe and Woodliff, 1994). In recent years,
the auditing profession has been involuntarily placed
in the sport light particularly because of some
spectacular and well-publicized corporate collapses
and the subsequent implication of the reporting
auditors (Aljaaidi, 2009). The audit expectations have
a long and persistent history (Humphrey, Moizer and
Turkey, 1993).

The audit expectations gap is acknowledged as a

worldwide problem and an international issue. The
growing literature on the audit expectations gap can
be seen as an indicator that it is a significant problem,
which needs additional research. The existence of an
audit expectation gap implies that the role senders are
dissatisfied with the performance of auditors (Koh

Activity Based Risk Evaluation Model of Auditing

(ABREMA) (2009) defines the expectation gap as the
gap between the auditors actual standard of
performance and the various public expectations of
auditors performance (as opposed to their required
standard of performance).Many members of the
public expect that: auditors should accept prime
539

Journal of Emerging Trends in Economics and Management Sciences (JETEMS) 4(6):539-546 (ISSN: 2141-7016)
responsibility for the financial statements, auditors
certify financial statements, a clean opinion
guarantees the accuracy of financial statements,
auditor perform a 100% check, auditors should give
early warning about the possibility of business failure
and auditors are supposed to detect fraud
(ABREMA,2009) According to the auditing
profession, the reality is that management, as
preparers of the financial statements, is primarily
responsible for their content, even though
management may request the auditors to prepare
them and an audit only provides reasonable assurance
that financial statements are free of material
misstatement.

expectations of the public, the lower the credibility,

earning potential and prestige associated with the
work of auditors.
Additionally, if the company
appears to face serious financial difficulties without
any warning, public usually perceive that auditors are
the ones to be made accountable for any losses
experienced (Koh & Woo, 1998).The auditing
profession believes that the increase in litigation and
criticism against the auditors can be traced to
expectation gap (Akinbuli, 2010).

The demand for external audit services originated

from the agency issue which arises out of the
separation of ownership and control of firms, Firms
are invariably owned by disparate shareholders, but
the daily operations of the firms are controlled by
professional managers: who may not hold significant
shareholdings in the firm. Despite the importance of
the audit function in the current capitalist economy,
the duties and responsibilities of auditors have never
been well defined (Alleyne and Howard, 2005). To
date, the duties and responsibilities of auditors have
remained the most controversial issue in auditing.
The audit expectation gap is generally referred to
as the difference between what the public and users
of financial statements perceive the role of an audit to
be, and what the audit profession claims is expected
of them during the performance of an audit (Ojo,
2006). The audit expectations gap is a matter of
considerable concern to all parties with an interest in
the accountability process and in the credibility of the
accounting and auditing profession (Gray & Manson,
2008). The expectation gap was found to be
particularly wide on the issues of the auditors
responsibilities for fraud prevention and detection,
and the auditors responsibilities for maintenance of
accounting records and exercise of judgment in the
selection of audit procedures (Best, Buckby and Tan,
2001). It appears that Liggio (1974) was the first to
apply the phrase expectation gap to auditing. He
defines it as the difference between the levels of
expected performance as envisioned by the
independent accountant and by the user of financial
statements.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES
The specific objectives of this study are to:
(1) examine the respondents perceptions on the
existence of audit expectation gap in Nigeria;
and
(2) identify auditors existing responsibilities in
Nigeria.

The broad objective of this study is to examine the

existence of expectation gap between auditors and
users of financial statement in Nigeria.

RESEARCH HYPOTHESES
For the purpose of achieving our objective, two
hypotheses stated in their null forms are put forward:
H1:
External auditors and users of financial
statements in Nigeria do not agree as regards
the auditors duty for fraud detection and
preventation.
H2:
Users of financial statements in Nigeria do
not expect auditors to give reasonable
assurance.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The public perception of an auditors responsibility
differs from that of the profession and this difference
referred to as the expectation gap (Salehi and
Rostami, 2009). The audit expectation gap has a long
persistent history. Various definitions have been
proposed for the audit expectation gap. For the
purpose of the research, the definition of the audit
expectation-performance gap proposed by Porter
(1993) is adopted. This gap is defined as that
between: (i) societys expectations of auditors; and
(ii) auditors performance as perceived by society.
This gap comprises two major components:
1) the reasonableness gap the gap between what
society expects of auditors and what auditors can
reasonably be expected to accomplish;
2) the performance gap the gap between the
expected standard of performance of auditors
carrying out these responsibilities and auditors
actual performance of these duties.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The expectations gap is considered to be one of the
major issues confronting the accountancy profession.
(Sikka, Puxty, Willmott and Cooper, 1998). The
users of financial statements expect auditors to detect
and report material fraud and irregularities among
other things. In response, the profession argues that
the public misunderstandings the role of auditor and
that fraud detection and reporting is not a major audit
objective. The audit expectation gap is critical to the
auditing profession because the greater the unfulfilled

A good number of studies were attempted at

identifying the audit expectation gap in different
countries around the world. Baron, Johnson, Searfoss
and Smith (1977) investigated the differences in
540

Journal of Emerging Trends in Economics and Management Sciences (JETEMS) 4(6):539-546 (ISSN: 2141-7016)
perception regarding auditors fraud detection duties
between auditors and users of accounting information
in USA. The study revealed significance difference
between such perceptions. Humphrey, Mozier and
Turley (1993) examined the expectation gap in UK
regarding the role of auditors through in UK
regarding the role of auditors through a series of
unstructured interviews, questionnaire and mini case
studies. The study revealed an insignificant level of
differences regarding perceptions of the audit
functions but significant difference between auditors
and respondents regarding their perceptions on the
role of auditors, indicating the presence of an
expectation gap. Haniffa and Hudaib, (2007),
investigated the presence of a perceptions gap in
Saudi Arabia. In Nigeria, few studies attempted to
document the problem of the expectation gap, for
instance, Akinbuli (2010), Adeyemi and Uadiale
(2011); Enofe, Mgbame, Aronmwan and Osbeide
(2013). It was found that divergence in opinions on
the official and expected roles of auditing and issues
related to audit environment in between the various
groups were apparent. The role of education in
affecting the audit expectations gap was investigated
by a number of studies.

(ii)

by the report are in agreement with the books

of account and returns;
whether, in their opinion and to the best of
their information and according to the
explanations given them, the said statements
give the information required by this Act in
the manner so required and give a true and
fair view.

Causes of the Audit Expectation Gap

A number of causes for the existence of the audit
expectations gap have been put forward over the
years. Tricker (1982) argues, the expectations gap
exits as a result of a normal time lag by the auditing
profession in identifying and reacting continually to
the changing auditing environments and public
expectations. For example, a 2002 United States (US)
study conducted by Ernest Young found that the fund
managers constantly used non- financial performance
measures in decision-making. In this regard, public is
requesting the expansion of assurance function to
cover not just the financial measures, but also the
entire scorecard of an organization.
Gaa (1991) points out that the audit expectations
gap was a direct result of the political game
between two contending parties between the
public and the auditors. This view is supported
by Sikka, Puty, Willmot and Copper (1998) in
which they argued that historical and political
contexts can give indication within which
expectations are formed, frustrated and
transformed. They contend that audit as a social
practice is subjected to constantly shifting
meanings because the social context of auditing
changes continuously through interaction and
negotiation. The conclusion from this perspective
is that the audit expectations gap will continue to
exist. Humphrey, Moizer and Turley (1993)
argue that it is the consequence of the
contradictions in self regulated audit system
regulating
with
minimal
government
intervention.

According to the World Bank (2004), the main legal

framework for corporate accounting and auditing
practices in Nigeria is the Companies and Allied
Matters Act (CAMA), CAP, C20, LFN 2004. The
auditor is liable for negligence if, as a result of failing
to discharge the fiduciary duty properly, the company
suffers loss or damage. The Act provides for
appointment, remuneration, rights, functions, powers
and termination of auditors. Section 359 (1) states
that the auditors of a company shall make a report to
its members on the accounts examined by them, and
on every balance sheet and profit and loss accounts,
and on all group financial statements copies of which
are to be laid before the company in a general
meeting during the auditors tenure of office.
Specifically, the Act states that it shall be the duty of
the companys auditor, in preparing their report to
carry out such investigations as may enable them to
form an opinion. The auditors report shall state the
matters set out in the Sixth Schedule to CAMA as
follows:
(1)
whether they have obtained all the
information and explanations, which to the
best of their knowledge and belief were
necessary for the purpose of their audit;
(2)
whether, in their opinion, proper books of
account have been kept by the company, so
far as appears from their examination of
those books and proper returns adequate for
the purpose of their audit have been received
from branches not visited by them;
(3)
(i)
whether the companys balance
sheet and profit and loss account dealt with

Another point of view is that the audit expectations

gap is a result of corporate failure. The corporate
failure, in turn, is regarded as audit failure. Corporate
collapse is always accompanied by scrutiny of the
roles of auditors and in some cases, litigations on the
grounds that they have performed the task negligently
(Power, 1994). Such focus is sharpened when the
collapse of a company comes only a short time after
its financial statements are given an unqualified audit
opinion (Dewing and Russel, 2002). This view is
supported by the finding of a study by Porter and
Gowthorpe (2004) where they suggested that the
significant and unexpected company collapse both in
the UK and New Zealand partly contributed to an
audit expectations gap in these two countries.

541

Journal of Emerging Trends in Economics and Management Sciences (JETEMS) 4(6):539-546 (ISSN: 2141-7016)
Clearly, from the discussion above, the audit
expectations gap exists because of various factors. It
is reasonable to point out that the changes in the
auditing environment have prompted the expectations
questions. However, the underlying reasons for the
existence of the audit expectations gap lies on its
main players, the auditors and the users. On one
hand, it is a direct result of the audit profession
failing to respond appropriately to new issues arising
from changes in the audit environment. For example,
the refusal of auditors to assume responsibility of
fraud detection and reporting exercise; and their
involvement with non-audit services extended.

the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Nigeria

(ICAN) issued Nigerian Standard in Auditing (NSA)
5 The Auditors Responsibilities to consider Fraud
in an Audit of Financial Statement. The standard
specify the primary responsibility regarding fraud
prevention when it states: The primary responsibility
for the prevention and detection of fraud rest with
both those charged with governance of the entity and
with management. (Paragraph 2:2:1. The standard
also mentioned that: The auditor should maintain an
attitude of professional skepticism throughout the
audit, recognizing the possibility that a material
misstatement
due
to
fraud
could
exist,
notwithstanding the auditors past experience with
the entity about the honesty and integrity of
management and those charged with governance.
(Paragraph 3:1)

DETECTION AND PREVENTION OF FRAUD

A critical issue relating to auditor responsibility lies
in defining an auditors obligation to detect and
report frauds, or irregularities committed by clients
employees or management (Lys and Watts, 1994). In
general, the purpose of the audit practice is to enable
them to express an opinion whether the accounts
presented show a true and fair view. The general
public appears to have a high expectation that
auditors will detect or prevent all frauds, whereas the
auditing profession does not agree fraud detection as
primary audit objective. According to Hassink
Bollen, Meuwissen and Vries (2009), the audit
profession minimizes its role in fraud detection and
expresses that is the responsibility of management.
The accounting profession argues that one cause of
the expectation gap is the publics failure to
appreciate the nature and limitations of an audit
(Epstein and Geiger, 1994).

The auditors were only statutorily required to express

opinion on how well the stewardship reports reflect a
true and fair view of the state of affairs of the
audited entity. (Asien, 2007). This development has
led many stakeholders to rightly question the
usefulness of annual audit beyond the need to fulfill
regulatory requirements.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Role Conflict Theory provides a theoretical
explanation for the existence of an expectation gap.
The theory is developed by Rizzo, House and
Lirtzman in 1970. Role Conflict Theory is based on
the following assumptions: the auditor is required to
monitor the clients financial statements and the
public expects the auditor to faithfully carry out that
role (Koo and Sim, 1999).

Haniffa and Hudaib (2007) found that auditors

responsibilities for fraud detection and reporting is
highly expected by all users expect finance directors,
who do not believe this to be part of their
responsibility. Hassink et al (2009) conducted a
survey concerning the role of the auditor in corporate
fraud cases between financial managers and auditors
in the Netherlands. The results provide clear evidence
of a significant expectations gap in conjunction with
fraud detection and the responsibilities of auditors
with respect to fraud. The primary function of
external auditors is to attest to the fairness of the
financial statements of a company (Rulund and
Lindblon, 1992). There is evidence that some of this
criticism is based on societys lack of knowledge of
company law and auditing standards and a
misunderstanding of the fundamental role of external
auditor (Pierce and Kilcommins, 1996).

The auditor is in conflict because he or she must

firstly serve the professional regulations and rules
governing auditor independence. Then, this must be
balanced against his or her role as the watch dog
who should be serving the interests of the users and
the client as well as looking after his or her own self
interest (Alleyne and Devonish 2006). The role of
the auditor is subject to the interactions of the
normative expectations of the various interest groups
in the society having some direct or indirect
relationship to the role position (Davidson 1975). He
noted that these different groups may hold varying
expectations of the auditor and these expectations
may change from time to time depending on the respecification of their own role requirements and the
interaction of other forces in the society. Hence, the
auditors are placed in multi-role and multi
expectation situations. Furthermore, Koo and Sim
(1999) argue that role conflict may arise because of
the expectation gap that exists between the auditors
and users. Users expect auditors to serve the public
and to uncover management fraud (Mills and Bettner,
1992). There is role conflict when the auditor is

In 2004, the International Auditing and Assurance

Board (IAASB) of the International Federation of
Accountants (IFAC) issued a revised version of ISA
No 240: The auditors Responsibilities Relating to
Fraud in an Audit of Financial Statements, with
directions to external auditors with respect to fraud.
In line with the requirement by IFAC, in July 2006,
542

Journal of Emerging Trends in Economics and Management Sciences (JETEMS) 4(6):539-546 (ISSN: 2141-7016)
unable to satisfy all the responsibilities expected by
users.

groups are very informed about the users of financial

statements and auditing process per use and thus any
measure of expectation gap taken from the study
should be considered to be stronger and more reliable
than if respondents were largely inexperienced with
regard to these issues.

METHODOLOGY
The research method adopted in this study is identical
to that used in Schelluch (1996). Using the same
methodology assists in providing a reliable
assessment of the audit expectation gap in Nigeria
and permits useful comparisons to be made between
the results from this study and prior research on this
issue. The questionnaire used in this study consisted
of two sections. The first section collected
demographic data. The second section contained
thirteen (13) semantic differential belief statements.
Three factors were measured by these belief
statements (1) responsibility, (2) reliability and (3)
decision usefulness. The statements were designed as
bipolar adjectival statements which were separated by
five point likert scales with the aim that
respondents would choose a number from the scale
which identified their level of agreement with one or
the other of the statements. The population of the
study comprised all auditors, auditees and audit
beneficiaries in Nigeria. The purposive sampling
technique was employed in this study. We distributed
450 copies of questionnaire to 150 auditors, 150
bankers and 150 investors. The sample consisted of
respondents in Ibadan and Osogbo. The data
collected were analyzed using both descriptive and
inferential statistics. The hypotheses formulated for
the study were tested using FriedmanTest Analysis
were carried out with the aid of the Statistical
Package for Social Sciences (SPSS version 19.0)

Table 2: Occupational Experience of Respondents

No of years Experience in Current
Occupation
1 5 years
6 10 years
11 15 years
16 years and above
Total

Number

Percentage

108
53
11
91
263

41
20.2
4.2
34.6
100

Source: Analysis of Survey Data (2013)

The results from Table 2 indicate that occupation
experience of respondents was quite wide spread with
41% of respondents in the 1 5 years range and the
remaining 59% in the 6-15 and 16 years and over
categories. This Table provides evidence of the fact
that respondents to the survey had considerable
experience in their areas of expertise and should
provide experienced judgments on the issues in the
survey. The level of experience combined with the
level of accounting knowledge and experience should
add credibility to the measure of audit expectation
gap in Nigeria provided by this study.
Table 3: Responses of the Respondents on the
Statements
S/N

Statement

SA

SD

Auditor is responsible to
produce financial statement

64

15

13

Auditor is responsible for

preventing fraud and errors

23

10

42

17

18

55

22

12

27

48

12

32

43

DATA ANALYSIS
Demographics of Respondents
The survey document was sent to 450 subjects
containing of 150 subjects from each of three groups
auditors, bankers and investors. Response rates
from these groups and other demographic details are
shown in Tables 1 and 2 below

3
4
5

Table 1: Demographics of Respondents

Subject
Group
Auditors
Bankers
Investors
Total

No of
Surveys
Sent
150
150
150
450

Responses
Received
90
75
98
263

60%
50%
65%
58.42

Accounting
Experience
Yes
No
90
0
67
8
59
39
216
47

Accounting
Qualification
Yes
No
90
0
40
35
46
52
176
87

Auditor is responsible for

maintaining accounting records

18

25

40

12

Auditor exercise judgment in

selecting audit procedure

20

65

Educating the public will reduce

their perception towards
auditors

10

53

20

10

23

34

30

22

10

54

17

55

18

10

Source: Analysis of Survey Data (2013)

11

The results from Table 1 indicate that an overall

response rate of 58.4% was received from the survey,
which is a creditable result for this type of data
collection method. The qualification to the auditing
and accounting process appear high with many of the
respondents
indicating
either
accounting
qualifications and experience. These levels of
experience appear to indicate that the respondents

Auditor is responsible for

detecting fraud and errors
Auditor should make 100%
examination in audit procedure
Auditor should report all
omission discovered in the
report

12

13

Auditors is unbiased and

objective
The audited financial statements
are not useful in monitoring the
performance of the entity
The auditor is responsible for
the soundness of the internal
control structure of the entity

Source: Analysis of Survey Data (2013)

543

Journal of Emerging Trends in Economics and Management Sciences (JETEMS) 4(6):539-546 (ISSN: 2141-7016)
Based on the result in Table 3 above, it can be
deduced that the auditor is not responsible for
detecting all fraud. The auditor is not responsible for
the soundness of the internal control structure of the
entity. The auditor is responsible for maintaining
accounting records. Management has responsibility
for producing the financial statements. The auditor is
not responsible for preventing fraud. The auditor is
unbiased and objective. The auditor does not exercise
judgment in the selection of auditor procedures.
Users can have absolute assurance that the financial
statements contain no material misstatements. The
auditor does not agree with the accounting policies
used in the financial statements. The extent of
assurance given by the auditor is clearly indicated.
The financial statements give a true and fair view.
The entity is free from fraud. The extent of audit
work performed is clearly communicated. The
audited financial statements are not useful in
monitoring the performance of the entity. The audited
financial statements are not useful for making
decisions. The entity is well managed.

Hypothesis 2
H0: Users of financial statements in Nigeria do not
expect auditors to give reasonable assurance.
H1: Users of financial statements in Nigeria do
expect auditors to give reasonable assurance.
ANOVA
Sum of
Squares
VAR00001

Within Groups
Total

Ranks
Mean Rank
VAR00002

3.25

VAR00003

2.00

VAR00004

2.90

Chi-Square
Df
Asymp. Sig.

.500

68.100

8.450 16.900

Sig.
.186

.500

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the findings in this study, the following
conclusions were arrived at. A clear understanding
and consensus of the role auditor plays is needed in
order to understand and evaluate the reasonableness
of perceptions that users of auditing services have of
the auditing profession as well as claims by auditors
regarding their responsibilities and functions. This
study found the existence of an audit expectation gap
in the responsibility of auditor in Nigeria. The audit
expectation gap is detrimental to the auditing
profession as it has negative influences on the value
of auditing and the regulation of auditors in the
modern society. In order to close the gap, the duties
appropriate to auditors must be clearly defined.
However, this can only be achieved when both
auditors and those whom they serve have a clear
understanding of the role of external auditors in the
society. The role and responsibility of auditors in the
areas of fraud and illegal acts should be broadening.
It is also necessary to raise the awareness of the
financial statements users about the auditing
profession, its roles and objectives in the community.

Test Statisticsa
N

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The results of this study indicate that the expectation
gap was found to be particularly wide on the issues of
the auditors responsibilities for fraud prevention and
detection. Users of audited financial statements
expect auditors to give absolute assurance. Users of
accounting information are not in agreement as
regards the auditors duty for fraud detection and
prevention. Our findings are in line with Akinbuli
(2010) and Adeyemi and Uadiale (2011). These
findings present a serious picture for Nigerias
professional accounting bodies, as they indicate that
considerable potential value from the financial
reporting process is being lost as a result of the quite
considerable expectation gap in existence in this
country.

Friedman Test

1.85

67.600

From the analysis, it shows that the p-value (0.186) is

greater than 0.05, therefore the null hypothesis (H0) is
rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted. In
conclusion, users of financial statements in Nigeria
expect auditors to give absolute assurance.

TEST OF HYPOTHESES
Hypothesis 1
H0: External auditors and users of financial
statements in Nigeria do not agree as regards
the auditors duty for fraud detection and
prevention.
H1: External auditors and users of financial
statements in Nigeria do agree as regards the
auditors duty for fraud detection and
prevention.

VAR00001

Between
Groups

Mean
Square

df

10
9.847
3
.020

a. Friedman Test

From the analysis, it shows that the p-value (0.020)

is less than 0.05, therefore the null hypothesis (H0)
is accepted and the alternative hypothesis is rejected.
In conclusion, external auditors and users of
financial statements in Nigeria do not agree as
regards the auditors duty for fraud detection and
prevention.

544

Journal of Emerging Trends in Economics and Management Sciences (JETEMS) 4(6):539-546 (ISSN: 2141-7016)
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
Every study has its limitations. The broad objective
of this study is to examine the existence of
expectation gap between auditors and users of
financial statements in Nigeria. The study is limited
by a sample size of 450 respondents, comprising of
auditors, bankers and investors. The survey was
restricted to Ibadan and Osogbo. It is likely that the
opinions expressed by respondents may not represent
the views of every Nigerian. However, these
limitations are not expected to adversely influence
the findings of the study.

Davidson, L. (1975). The Role and Responsibilities

of The Auditor: Perspective, Expectations and
Analysis. Unpublishe Background Paper for the
Commission on Auditors Responsibilities.
Dewing, I. P. and Russel, P. O. (2002).UK Fund
Managers Audit Reguations And The New
Accounting Foundation Managerial Auditing
Journal, Vol. 17: 537 545.
Epstein, M. J. and Geiger, M. A. (1994). Investor
Views of Audit Assurance. Recent Evidence of the
Expectation Gap. Journal of Accountancy, Vol. 177.
Jonvey: 60 66.

REFERENCES
Activity Based Risk Evaluation Model of Auditing
(ABREMA)
(2009).
Retrieved
from
http://www.abrema.net/abrema/expectpags.html.Acce
ssed on 14th July, 2010.

Enofe, A. O., Mgbame, C. O., Aronmwan, E. J. and

Ogbeide, I. E. (2013). Audit Reasonableness
Expectation Gap: Users Perception in Nigeria.
International Journal of Business and Social Research
(IJBSR), Vol.3(3) March.

Adeyemi S.B and Uadiale, O.M. (2011). An

Empirical Investigation of the Audit Expectation Gap
in Nigeria: African Journal of Business Management
Vol. 5(19). 7964-7971, September.

Gaa, J. C. (1991). The Expectations Game:

Regulation of Auditors by Government and The
Profession Critical Perspective of Accounting, Vol.
2: 83-107.

Akinbuli, S.F (2010). The Effect of Audit

Expectation Gap on the Work of Auditors, the
Profession and Users of Financial Information. The
Nigerian Accountant, October/December. 37-47

Gray, I. and Manson, S. (2008). The Audit Process:

Principles, Practice and Cases, 4th ed. London:
Patrick Bond.

Aljaaidi, K.S.Y (2009). Reviewing the Audit

Expectation Gap Literature from 1974 to 2007. IPBJ
Vol. 1 (1) 41 75.

Haniffa, R. Hudaib, M. (2007). Locating Audit

Expectation Gap within a Cultural Context: The Case
of Saudi Arabia J. Int. Account and Tax Vol. 16 (2):
179 206.

Alleyne, P. A. and Devonish, D. (2006). Perceptions

of Auditor Independence in Barbados. Managerial
Auditing Journal. Vol. 21 (6): 621 635.

Hassink, H.F.D. Bollen, L. H. Meuwissen R. H. G. de

vries M. J. (2009). Corporate Fraud and the Audit
Expectation Gap: A Study among Business
Managers. J. Int Account and Tax Vol. 18: 85 100.

Alleyne, P. Howard, M. (2005). An Exploratory

Study of Auditors Responsibilities for Fraud
Detection in Barbados. Managerial Auditing Journal
Vol. 20 (3): 284-303

Humphrey, C. Moizer, P. and Turkey, S. (1993). The

Audit Expectations Gap in Britain: An Empirical
Investigation. Accounting and Business Research.
Vol. 23 No 91 A: 395 411.

Asien, A. A. (2007) Changing Responsibility of the

Auditor. The Nigerian Accountants, vol. 40. N0 3
July/Sept, 56 60.

ICAN. (2006). Nigerian Standard on Auditing

(NSA) 5. The Auditors Responsibility to Consider
Fraud in An Audit of Financial Statements.

Baron, C. D., Johnson, D.A., Searfoss, D.G., and

Smith, C.H (1977). Uncovering Corporate
Irregularities: Are We Closing the Expectation Gap?
Journal of Accountancy, 144, 243-50.

Koh, C. and Woo, E. S. (1998). The Expectation Gap

in Auditing. Managerial Auditing Journal, 13(3): 147
154.

Best, P. J. Buckby, S. and C. Tan (2001). Evidence of

the Audit Expectation Gap in Singapore. Managerial
Auditing Journal. Vol. 16(3): 134 144.

Koo, C.M., and Sim, H.S. (1999). On The Role

Conflict of Auditors in Korea. Accounting, Auditing
and Accountability Journal. 12(2): 206-219.

Boyd, D. T., Boyd, S. C. and Boyd, W. L. (2001):

The Audit Report: A Misunderstanding Gap
Business Press Thomson Learning.

Liggio C.D. (1974). The Expectation Gap. The

Accountants
Legal
Waterloo?
Journal
of
Contemporary Business, Vol. 3: 27-44
545

Journal of Emerging Trends in Economics and Management Sciences (JETEMS) 4(6):539-546 (ISSN: 2141-7016)
Lys, T. and Watts, R. L. (1994). Lawsuits Against
Auditors. Journal of Accounting Research, Vol 32:
65 93.

Tricker, R. I. (1982). Corporate Accountability and

the Role of the Audit Function in Hopwood, A. G. M.
Broomwich and Shaud, J. (eds) Auditing Research:
Issues and Opportunities, London: Pitman.

Monroe, G. S. and Woodliff, D. R. (1994). An

Empirical Investigation of the Audit Expectation
Gap: Australian Evidence.

Woolf, E. (1979): Auditing Today, 3rd ed.: New

York: Prentice Hall.

Mills, S., and Bettner, M. (1992). Ritual and Conflict

in Audit Profession. Critical Perspectives on
Accounting, 3(2): 185-200.

World Bank (2004). Report on the Observance of

Standards and Codes (ROSC), Nigeria Accounting
and Auditing June 17.

Ojo, M. (2007). Eliminating the Audit Expectations

Gap: Reality or Myth?
Available at:
http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/232/. Accessed on
5/5/2013.
Pierce, B. and Kilcommins, M. (1996). The Audit
Expectations Gap: The Role of Auditing Education.
DCU Business School. Research Paper Series. Paper
No. 13 Pitman.
Porter, B. A. (1993). An Empirical Study of the
Audit Expectation Performance Gap. Accounting and
Business Research, Vol. 4 (93): 49-68
Porter, B. and Gowthorpe, C. (2004), Audit
Expectation Performance Gap in the U. K. in 1999
and comparison with the gap in New Zealand in 1989
and in 1999, Edinburgh: The Institute of Chartered
Accountants of Scotland.
Power, M. (1994): The Audit Explosion London:
Demos. Profession Critical Perspective of
Accounting, Vol. 2: 83-107.
Rizzo, J.R., House, R.J., and Lirtzman, S.I. (1970).
Role Conflict and Ambiguity in Complex
Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly,
June: 150-163.
Rulund, R. G. and Linjndbom, C. (1992) Ethic and
Disclosure: An Analysis of Conflicting Duties. Crit.
Perspect Account Vol. 3: 259 272.
Salehi, M. and Rostami, V. (2009). Audit Expectation
Gap: International Evidence. International Journal of
Academic Research. Vol. 1(1).
Scelluch, P. (1996). Long Form Audit Report
Messages: Further Implication for Audit Expectation
Gap. Accounting Research Journal. Vol. 9. 48-55.
Sikka P. A., Puxty H., Willmott, and C. Coopper
(1998), The Impossibility of Eliminating the
Expectation Gap Some Theory and Evidence
Critical Perspective on Accounting: 299 30.

546